Michael, here's my take on the review as I read it in ECR.
Richard Moore's observations, especially early in his criticism, are innocuous, describing the book's structure and briefly sketching the influence of several earlier poets. Those comments are interesting, but have no strong tie to his assertions later. It's an uncoupled argument, except to say, without apparent valuation, that Stallings' meter is looser than Frost's. So far, merely an observation.
In paragraph 3, he describes Persephone and her circumstances, with no comments on the poem's merits, although he finally gets around to comparing her poems unfavorably with the body of Greek drama, but I take this charitably to indicate only that where Greek literature and art established the myth, her treatment of it is not the same as Milton's - as if it has an obligation to do so. Then he delves into a brief analysis of Milton's writing style, which is, again, only loosely-coupled to his comments on AES's book. To this point, I understand more of his view of Milton and earlier formal poets than I do of his opinions of AES's book.
He finally gets around to specific complaints, accusing AES of triviality and easy rhymes. Maybe he wants more visible huffing and puffing, more evident straining to pull off the rhyme. He supports his sweeping assertion that 'poem after poem trivializes the subject' with a data point of this one poem. Then he implies that the author has a duty to explain avian behavior to readers so they can recognize a sexual metaphor that's already evident anyhow. Either the poem works or it doesn't; he would have us believe that it's obscure, but the poem is clear about its description of cardinal attraction. Then he repeats his claim that poem after poem is deficient, building to a vast conclusion on the basis of a single cited poem. I'll grant a priori that he read the rest of the book, but his focus on a single poem and his conclusions from it are unconvincing.
He balances his criticism with his favorable impression of another poem, but then uses it as a springboard to suggest that it's one of the few poems that acknowledge the existence of other people. This is a surprising assertion, when most of the poems are about relationships, whether personal or mythological, with their implied personal linkages.
The rest of his criticism is aimed at the condition of poetry today and the judgment of Stallings' endorsers.
I won't attack his review; each reader is entitled to expectations. Nor will I claim starkly that one review is right and another wrong. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the book and evaluate the criticisms on the basis of their own intelligence. My own modest review of her book was enthusiastic, and I stand by that enthusiasm. I bought and read the book because I enjoy AES's poetry, and found much to like in it. Richard Moore finds easy rhymes, but I found many instances of rhyming novelty and aptitude, subtlety and skill; found metrical grace, and found imagination that coupled the poet's life with the larger themes of the mythology and legend that inspired them. I found extrapolation and intelligent interpretation and application, and I continue to read Archaic Smile with satisfaction and enjoyment.
Jerry
[This message has been edited by Jerry H. Jenkins (edited 11-12-2000).]
|
Linear Mode
